[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-04, 12:51, said:

I suppose even if it weren't optional, folks who don't like it would ignore it, but that's life.

Yes, for example, WBFLC members who presumably don't like the existing Law and issue minutes pretending that it says something else!

[blackshoe]

ROFL!

I should keep in mind what a friend of mine tells me: you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.

[barmar]

I think the way to interpret the LC minute is that they're admitting that the wording of the Law isn't what was actually meant when it was written, i.e. they screwed up. They don't want us to be stuck with the literal reading of it for a decade, waiting for the next revision.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-October-04, 20:19, said:

I think the way to interpret the LC minute is that they're admitting that the wording of the Law isn't what was actually meant when it was written, i.e. they screwed up. They don't want us to be stuck with the literal reading of it for a decade, waiting for the next revision.

Too bad they didn't cancel it instead.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-04, 20:23, said:

Too bad they didn't cancel it instead.

Perhaps that's a precedent they didn't want to set.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-05, 16:59, said:

Perhaps that's a precedent they didn't want to set.

Could be. A useful precedent to set would be distributing a draft of the Laws, perhaps to the chief TDs of member NBOs, so the could be advised of potential problems ( since the drafters themselves seem unable to anticipate any).

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-04, 20:23, said:

Too bad they didn't cancel it instead.

Actually they did. The original wording was considered by many to say almost the opposite of what was intended and so at the last minute, after at least one NBO had made their print run of the new laws books, they changed it. It was perhaps due to that rush that they ended up with something that virtually no-one is happy with.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2014-October-06, 00:16, said:

Actually they did. The original wording was considered by many to say almost the opposite of what was intended and so at the last minute, after at least one NBO had made their print run of the new laws books, they changed it. It was perhaps due to that rush that they ended up with something that virtually no-one is happy with.

I (while enganged with the translation into Norwegian) was one of the many who definitely was unhappy with the first version of Law 27B1b and suggested the replacement.

The objective of Law 27B1 is to allow the auction to continue normally when no extra information has been introduced by the IB when rectified, and I still think this objective is met perfectly. In any case we have Law 27D as a safeguard for unforeseen situations.

There is, however, a problem if we get amendments (minutes) like allowing (Stayman) 2NT - 3♣ to replace 2NT - 2♣ (IB) when the 2♣ bid indicates at least 8HCP while the 3♣ bid can be made with as low as 3HCP. Such a replacement call is certainly not more precise than the insufficient bid. I must admit I don't know of such a minute, but I have heard rumours and am worried. Law 27D is probably the answer here.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-October-06, 02:14, said:

The objective of Law 27B1 is to allow the auction to continue normally when no extra information has been introduced by the IB when rectified, and I still think this objective is met perfectly. In any case we have Law 27D as a safeguard for unforeseen situations.

Of course if your partnership has no agreements on the meanings of insufficient bids (none of my partnerships do) then you can bid anything at al as a replacement call.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-06, 05:47, said:

Of course if your partnership has no agreements on the meanings of insufficient bids (none of my partnerships do) then you can bid anything at al as a replacement call.

Come on and be serious!
Nowhere in Law 27 will you find the word "agreement", that topic just isn't relevant for this Law.

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient. In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

(And as the subset of nothing is nothing then if the Director cannot figure out any intended meaing for the IB then the only replacement call which is more precise is a call with no meaning at all!)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2014-October-06, 06:18, said:

Vampyr, on 2014-October-06, 05:47, said:

Of course if your partnership has no agreements on the meanings of insufficient bids (none of my partnerships do) then you can bid anything at al as a replacement call.

Come on and be serious!
Nowhere in Law 27 will you find the word "agreement", that topic just isn't relevant for this Law.

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient. In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

I think Vampyr is making a serious point. I recall when I started directing in about 1986 I was troubled about how I should judge whether an insufficient bid was "natural" or not, when the meaning of calls is almost wholly dependent on partnership agreement, and one cannot have an agreement about insufficient bids. I wrote to Grattan Endicott (who was chair of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee at the time) for advice and the response I got was to make a sensible judgement and not speculate too wildly. I think he said I could if necessary take the player away from the table and ask them what they meant, but it was clear he did not expect me to do this routinely.

When the 2007 laws came into force with the addition of replacement calls with a similar meaning it became standard practice (in the EBU at least) to ask the offender in private what they intended by the insufficient bid, and use that as the "meaning" in the context of law 27. But unless Vampyr and I are the only ones to have this difficulty I cannot understand why the law doesn't say so explicitly.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2014-October-06, 06:18, said:

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient.

It's easy to make an assumption as to what was intended, but not necessarily to be right about it. We tend to assume that a player who had responded 2C to an opening 2NT was trying to respond to 1NT, but I think it's just as likely to have been a mispull or a confusion of the mind.

pran, on 2014-October-06, 06:18, said:

In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

(And as the subset of nothing is nothing then if the Director cannot figure out any intended meaing for the IB then the only replacement call which is more precise is a call with no meaning at all!)

One might consider that if there is no intended meaning of the IB, it encompasses all possible calls and therefore any replacement call would be more precise and should be allowed.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2014-October-06, 07:15, said:

I think Vampyr is making a serious point. I recall when I started directing in about 1986 I was troubled about how I should judge whether an insufficient bid was "natural" or not, when the meaning of calls is almost wholly dependent on partnership agreement, and one cannot have an agreement about insufficient bids. I wrote to Grattan Endicott (who was chair of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee at the time) for advice and the response I got was to make a sensible judgement and not speculate too wildly. I think he said I could if necessary take the player away from the table and ask them what they meant, but it was clear he did not expect me to do this routinely.

When the 2007 laws came into force with the addition of replacement calls with a similar meaning it became standard practice (in the EBU at least) to ask the offender in private what they intended by the insufficient bid, and use that as the "meaning" in the context of law 27. But unless Vampyr and I are the only ones to have this difficulty I cannot understand why the law doesn't say so explicitly.

Both Law 27B1a and Law 27B1b include the clause: "in the Director’s opinion".

It should not be difficult to understand that this means the Director must make up his own mind as best he can, based on the circumstances and available facts, and judge whether or not the relevant conditions are satisfied.

Grattan's advice appears very sensible to me. (Very seldom have I needed to take the player away from the table and ask him what he really meant.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-October-06, 06:18, said:

Come on and be serious!
Nowhere in Law 27 will you find the word "agreement", that topic just isn't relevant for this Law.

OK, meaning then.

Quote

It is not so difficult to figure out what was intended with the bid that turned out to be insufficient. In order to have a more precise meaning the meaning of the replacement call must be a subset of the intended meaning of the IB.

Yes, but the intended meaning should be irrelevant, because the effect on the other players is the same. There should not be different rulings for the exact same insufficient bid. Of course, savvy players will always get themselves a penalty-free correction, while more naive players may not.

Quote

(And as the subset of nothing is nothing then if the Director cannot figure out any intended meaing for the IB then the only replacement call which is more precise is a call with no meaning at all!)

So the game grinds to a halt... although as noted above, the opposite conclusion is probably correct.


Some of this redundant because I have crossed lots of posts.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-06, 10:20, said:

OK, meaning then.

Yes, but the intended meaning should be irrelevant, because the effect on the other players is the same.

But what else are you going to use? There can't be an agreed meaning. What you really care about is how the other players (both the partner and opponents) interpret it, but these could be different for each of them.

They were trying to come up with an improvement over the old law, which totally screwed you if you inadvertently made an insufficient Stayman or transfer bid, because you couldn't make any artificial bids sufficient. Unfortunately, they opened a new can of worms with the way they described this.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2014-October-06, 12:40, said:

They were trying to come up with an improvement over the old law, which totally screwed you if you inadvertently made an insufficient Stayman or transfer bid, because you couldn't make any artificial bids sufficient. Unfortunately, they opened a new can of worms with the way they described this.

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-October-06, 12:40, said:

But what else are you going to use? There can't be an agreed meaning. What you really care about is how the other players (both the partner and opponents) interpret it, but these could be different for each of them.

The question you ask is perhaps easier to answer from the player's perspective. You can't have an agreed meaning, but you are forced to give one. Therefore you must be sure to give an answer that will allow a penalty-free correction.

jeffford76, on 2014-October-06, 15:39, said:

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

Well, 27B1(a) has similar problems, but somehow seemed to work reasonably well. Mainly it was just seen as a sort of extension to 27A.

Anyway 27B in its present form will undoubtably soon join its brother, good old "playing for 30%" in the dustbin of Bridge Law history.

[gordontd]

jeffford76, on 2014-October-06, 15:39, said:

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which:

1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction.

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

I doubt you'll get your wish: all laws have been moving away from simple, punitive corrections towards restitution that aims to restore matters as closely as possible to where they would have been without the infraction, so the first suggestion would not fit into that general trend. As to the second one, I think UI cases take up more TD time, create more appeals and engender more ill-will than any other group of rulings, so I don't think it would be desirable to increase their application in this way.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2014-October-06, 18:39, said:

Anyway 27B in its present form will undoubtably soon join its brother, good old "playing for 30%" in the dustbin of Bridge Law history.

Actually 40%. I must be almost the only person who didn't dislike that law! It removed the undeserved windfall from the NOS without giving the benefit to the OS.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2014-October-06, 15:39, said:

2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner.

Then you have to figure out what the I is from an IB, so you can figure out whether partner took advantage of it. Which is essentially the same problem as figuring out whether the replacement bid has the same or more specific meaning.